MA Emilio Schmidt/Lothars Notes: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(mew) |
m (→Pressure Truncation: effect?) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= Pressure Truncation = | = Pressure Truncation = | ||
While it's true that space is not vacuum, in which sense and to what degree is it more accurate to ignore all mass beyond \(R_\text{max}\) (being defined via \(\rho(R_\text{max})=\rho_\text{background}\)) instead of ignoring | While it's true that space is not vacuum, in which sense and to what degree is it more accurate to ignore ''all'' mass beyond \(R_\text{max}\) (being defined via \(\rho(R_\text{max})=\rho_\text{background}\)) instead of letting the density vanish continuously and thus ignoring ''less'' of the mass? Is the background pressure (or density) supposed to have an ''effect'' or is it just a means to an end, namely to define a finite \(R_\text{max}\)? | ||
Latest revision as of 08:57, 1 June 2026
Pressure Truncation
While it's true that space is not vacuum, in which sense and to what degree is it more accurate to ignore all mass beyond \(R_\text{max}\) (being defined via \(\rho(R_\text{max})=\rho_\text{background}\)) instead of letting the density vanish continuously and thus ignoring less of the mass? Is the background pressure (or density) supposed to have an effect or is it just a means to an end, namely to define a finite \(R_\text{max}\)?